The English version of the questionnaire was used for elicitation.
How to cite
Garcia, Rowena & Rhenee Espayos. 2020. Bivalent patterns in Tagalog.
In: Say, Sergey (ed.). BivalTyp:
Typological database of bivalent verbs and their encoding frames.
(Data first published on August 11, 2023; last revised on August 11, 2023.)
(Available online at https://www.bivaltyp.info, Accessed on )
Note: Not included in the database because Y is expressed as an NP-internal modifier. Non-verbal predicate. Alternative is “S<um>akit ang ulo ni Pedro” [<AV>PFV.hurt SUBJ head PERS.GEN PN] ‘Pedro's head became hurt.’, which also cannot be included because Y is expressed as an NP-internal modifier.
Note: Non-verbal predicate. I classified this non-verbal construction based on the following considerations. The X-argument, ‘Pedro’, is encoded as a subject marker. Although this construction does not participate in the voice alternations, I still thought it can be compared to the AV construction, one reason for this being the fact that a similar dynamic construction has ‘Pedro’ as the subject in the AV-COM construction: “Nag-ka-trangkaso si Pedro” [AV-COM-PFV-have.flu PERS.SUBJ PN] ‘Pedro got the flu.’. Subjects in AV constructions are considered ACT. By contrast the Y-argument receives no flagging at all and is given a specialized status of ‘BARE’.
Note: ??? Think about the COM marker. Non-verbal predicate. Although this is a non-verbal construction, the encoding of X and Y is identical with that displayed by ACT & UND in the PV-construction. As RG mentioned that “After chatting with two linguists, I think we can categorize it like a PV”, the pattern here has been identified as “ACT_UND”.
Note: ??? Think about the COM marker. Initially, this form was interpreted as Naka-salubong (POTAV-PFV.encounter). However, the choice of the more logical interpretation (POTPV-COM) was based on “the noun marker interpretation, and not due to uninfluenced voice-marker on the verb judgement”). Alternative is a construction where X and Y are encoded as conjoined NPs: “Nag-ka-salubong sina Pedro at Miguel” [AV-COM-PFV.encounter 3PL.SUBJ PN CONJ PN] ‘Pedro encountered Miguel’.
Note: Non-verbal construction. RG suggested to treat this construction “as similar to AV”. For that reason, ‘Pedro’ is classified as ACT (in fact, one of the linguists RG consulted suggested exactly the contrary, i.e. to treat unconjugated verbs, here and elsewhere, as parallel to PV). Grammatically, “hawak na” is a preposed modifier to “libro” (not unlike adjectives); “One can actually also say “may libro na hawak”, and “na hawak” is a relative clause”. Thus, “libro” has a very special status here in that it has no flag at all (hence, classified as BARE). There is a solid ground to believe that ‘the book’ is not the subject (Cf. RG’s remark that Sabbagh (2009) wrote that “Concretely, all existential sentences are impersonal constructions in that they have no overt subject and the nominal pivot functions as an internal argument of some sort. That the pivot (e.g., held book) is an internal argument rather than a subject is established by a couple of observations. First, one property of subjects in Tagalog is that they can serve as the shared subject of coordinated predicates… By contrast, non-subjects (namely, direct objects and VP-internal agents) cannot serve as the shared argument of coordinated predicates (see Kroeger 1993: 35; Sabbagh 2008)… With respect to this type of argument sharing, the pivot in existential sentences appears to pattern as a non-subject (i.e., internal argument) rather than as a subject.” Alternative is the stative construction with the pattern ACT_UND: “Hawak-hawak ni Pedro ang libro” [held PERS.GEN PN SUBJ book] ‘Pedro is holding the book.’
Note: ??? Can you change the voice and turn Pedro into the subject here? Alternative is the POTPV-LV construction with the ACT_LOC (???) pattern: “Na-hawak-an ni Pedro ang pader” [POTPV.PFV-touch-LV PERS.GEN PN SUBJ wall] ‘Pedro touched the wall.’
Note: Non-verbal predicate. This non-verbal predicate has been identified as an ACT_UND pattern based on RG’s comment that this constructions can be considered like PV. Alternative is an non-verbal pattern with X and Y expressed in a conjoined NP: “Mag-kaibigan sina Pedro at Miguel” [friends 3PL.SUBJ PN CONJ PN] ‘Pedro is friends with Miguel.’
Note: Alternative is nevertheless a PV construction that looks exactly like the ACT_UND pattern: “H<in>i~hintay ni Pedro si Miguel” [<PV>IPFV~wait PERS.GEN PN PERS.SUBJ PN] ‘Pedro is waiting for Miguel.’ It is interesting and unexpected for me that there is no LV marking in this second option.
Note: ??? Can you change the voice and turn the house into the subject here? (the reason I ask is that as I see from you grandma&stone example, there is no flagging difference between ACT and UND in the LV construction (see the identical encoding of grandma and a stone). RG mentions that she “cannot say that house is an actor” and adds that “what makes [this verb] different from the other POTPV is that this one has a locative voice marking too, which makes Pedro sort of the source/owner of the object that is now lost. The ACT in other POTPV are more clearly agents. For this item, I really cannot add an agent, but for another verb POTPV + LV verb, I can add an agent: “Na-hagis-an ng lola ng bato ang bata.” The grandma (ng lola) accidentally threw the child (ang bata) a stone (ng bato).”
Note: Alternative is a AV construction, also with a ACT_UND pattern (hence, SBJ & GEN), cf. “Pedro flattered someone/a girl” “Nambola si Pedro ng isang babae.”, where the girl gets GEN. But this is only possible with indefinite Y-arguments, not with a proper name.
Note: Alternative is the CAUS<PV> construction, also with the ACT_UND pattern: “P<in>a~pangarap ni Pedro ang bago-ng sasakyan” [CAUS<PV>IPFV~dream PERS.GEN PN SUBJ new-LIN vehicle] ‘Pedro is dreaming of a new car.’
Note: SS. ‘This tool’ has the status I identify as UND (PV & SBJ). However, ‘compass’ is not an ACT (‘Indeed, one can add an agent with a ng- phrase (tinatawag na compass ang gamit na ito ng mga scientists “scientists call this tool a compass”), so the “na compass” does seem to be something else»). The label LIN is somewhat arbitrarz though, but it signals some special relation to the predicate.
Note: The status of X-argument, ‘Pedro’, is more or les doubtlessly UND. Things get more complicated when it comes to the Y-argument, ‘one peso’. Based on the observed encoding pattern it should be classified as ACT. This does contradict the semantic expectations we have but fits the observed encoding. Unexpectedly, in the corresponding AV construction no change in the encoding of arguments occurs: actually they receive the same flags as in the PV construction, cf. “Nag-kulang ng piso si Pedro“ [AV.PFV-short GEN one_peso PERS.SUBJ PN] ‘Pedro is one peso short.’. Taken in isolation, this structure would have analyzed as ACT_UND.
Note: ??? Can you change the voice and turn money into the subject here? I chose this option because it has overt voice morphology. Alternative is a non-verbal construction with a very unusual pattern (two GEN in the coding frame; probably should be viewed as UND_UND), cf. “Kailangan ni Pedro ng pera” [need PERS.GEN PN GEN money] ‘Pedro needs money’.
Note: ??? Can you change the voice and turn the walls into the subject here? Alternative is another LV construction: “P<in>a~pa-libut-an ng pader ang lungsod” [<PV>IPFV~surround-LV GEN wall SUBJ city] ‘Walls surround the city.’
Note: Non-verbal predicate. Alternative that was actually suggested first was a cleft construction: “Sampung-piso na lang ang na-ti~tira kay Pedro.” [Ten-pesos now only SUBJ POTPV-IPFV~leave PERS.DAT PN] ‘Pedro only has 10 pesos left.’ Here, X is LOC.
Note: The status of the X argument is clearly UND. The status of the Y-argument is trickier: it can be considered an incorporated object. The label BARE is used because there is no overt flagging associated with this argument. Alternatively, this structre can be disregarded altogether as the one that lacks two clause-level arguments.
Note: ??? Can you change the voice and turn the lightning into the subject here? Alternative is a construction where the X-argument is semantically incorporated into the verb: “Na-kidlat-an ang bahay” [POTPV.PFV-strike_by_lightning-LV SUBJ house] ‘Lightning hit / struck the house’.
Note: Alternative is the same verb in a slightly different voice construction, but with the same encoding frame: “H<in>ulog ni Pedro ang salamin” [<PV>PFV.drop PERS.GEN PN SUBJ glass] ‘Pedro dropped the glass.’
Note: Although ‘his mother’ is animate, the DAT marker used is the “inanimate” one; with a person name like Miguel “kay” would be used. Alternative is the PV construction that looks exactly like ACT_UND pattern: “S<in>u~sunod palagi ni Pedro ang nanay niya” [<PV>IPFV~obey ADV PERS.GEN PN SUBJ mother 3.SG.GEN] ‘Pedro always listens to / obeys his mother’.
Note: RG: “that’s what I would answer to a question “Why is Pedro so sad”---that Maria did something to him”. Alternative is a symmetrical construction: “Nag-away sina Pedro at Maria” [AV.PFV-quarrel 3PL.SUBJ PN CONJ PN] ‘Pedro had a quarrel with Maria.’
Note: ??? Think about the COM marker (and read a comment on this). RG: “Piso here is like compass in 51”. “ “Ito” can be a demonstrative and the LIN links it to the noun, like “this cup”. This would have simply been “ang baso” if it had been “the cup” instead of “this cup””. “I sometimes feel like the “ng” is also used like “na” as a linker (51).”. SS. i) I took your last comment seriously and changed the gloss of “ng” in this sentence.
Note: Can you change the voice and turn Pedro into the subject here? Alternative is “Na-hulog si Pedro kay Maria” [POTPV-PFV.fall PERS.SUBJ PN PERS.DAT PN] ‘Pedro fell in love with Maria.’, with the same UND_LOC pattern.
Note: RG suggested to align this structure with the PV constructions (hence, ‘Pedro’ is viewed as an UND). RG: I am actually now thinking if the ma- should be considered as STATPV in non-realis perfective (which supports the PV alignment).”
Note: Syntactic interpretation of this construction is tricky and partially arbitrary. First, it is based on RG’s suggestion to align this structure with PV structures. Thus, ‘Pedro’ is interpreted as ACT. As for the Y-argument, ‘phone’, it is treated as UND mainly because “one can have an “ang” before phone here, which just changes the specificity of the patient”. RG also noticed that she thinks that “we can treat telephone as PAT here, but yes, I don’t really have a clue. One linguist was telling me that constructions such as this are used as arguments that the ang-phrase is not a real subject.”